Which ICCF24 presentation is most likely to sway a skeptic?

Quote from JedRothwell

There are two problems with this.

1. Very few people are qualified. Most of the people who replicated in the 1990s are dead. The people who knew how to make the materials are dead.
2. It takes a year or two of hard work to replicate. You have to do the procedures described here, which take years: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEhowtoprodu.pdf

It has to be done manually, starting with hundreds of cathodes and winnowing them down to 2 or 3 that will work. Or winnowing them down to zero and then spending another year or two. Very few people are willing to devote this much effort to the task. I do not know anyone who has done it since the 1990s.

You could automate the work, which would speed it up, but designing and building the machines to do that would take years and millions of dollars.

The F&P approach with bulk Pd-D electrolysis does not seem likely to lead to a practical source of energy. Something like the LEC or the present systems from Takahashi or Mizuno seems more promising and easier to replicate, so that is where I put some money if I were Google. I would fund several different approaches, not just one.

Display More

I would prove the effect before wasting money on trying to make economic devices.

Gorilla Glass, used in cell phone screens, was first invented in the 60’s, but was a failure for its intended purpose, aircraft windows, because it was too heavy and too expensive to make. It had no other practical uses so it was shelved until sitting on and dropping cell phones became a thing. Nobody predicted the final main use of that glass. But they pulled the recipe and were able to make it again, and this time understood how it worked a lot better.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Because it is still contentious. Make it or break it, definitively, so the field can move on one way or another.

(Where "it" is the original bulk Pd-D electrolysis experiment.)

It has already been done, hundreds of times, by McKubre, Miles, Mizuno and many others. The results are indisputable. All of the reasons for claiming it did not work are bullshit, such as THH's nonsense about light and heavy water.

The original experiment is not easy to replicate, but then neither is an airplane, and no one claims airplanes don't exist. Demanding that it be replicated now, when you know it would take a year or two, or three or four, is unreasonable. It is like demanding we build and fly a a 1903 Wright flyer. Experts tried to do that in 2003. They failed. It did not get off the ground. That did not surprise anyone who has studied early aviation. The only thing that surprised me is that they did not kill themselves.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Forgive me for reiterating. I have nowhere seen test results that are obviously far above possible measurement issues. nor ahve a\i seen enough details to know whether they have measurements issues - the information that has been posted here from ICCF24 does not show clear LENR.

[…]

Characterising performance is great, especially, sensibly, on small systems. But without the detailed results we do not know what is their progress or lack of it.

Again, I point you to Iwamura et al.’s work. I did this earlier and you ignored it.

Have you read any of Iwamura’s papers? Are you familiar with his work?

Quote from Shane D.

Not trying to be argumentative, but the field has already moved on and seems to be making solid progress. None are hanging back because FP's is unresolved (if indeed they are) that I know of.

And even if someone were to take the time to attempt a FP replication and subsequently failed, I doubt that would stop the US Navy, Army, NASA, CP, CleanHME, Gordon/Whitehouse. Storms, Celani and many others around the world from continuing their work. Also, as THH keeps saying, you can't prove a negative so it is likely to remain a mystery.

On the other hand when the day arrives it is proven real, FP's, and Langmuir before them, will be exonerated.

This circular argument is the type that drives ‘non-believers’ away.
It is proved beyond a doubt, no one can do it anymore, or won’t, nobody can make it work when they want to, but it happens hundreds of times and no one will prove it again but we will be vindicated when someone else doing something else proves theirs…

And one can prove a negative by asking the appropriate opposite questions.

And so I ask an opposite question:

Is the reason that F&P replications are not being presently done is that they are a waste of time and money?

It looks like some paranoid CF deniers are more and more in deep mental conflicts. I suggest that these persons look for professional help.

I visited the Takashi lab back in 2019 where he already had some100 Watt excess. The scaling for absolute wattage is no problem. The real problem is the COP that still is to low in my view.

Discussing about the reality of CF is a flat earthers task.

But trolls will never give up. May be they can once tell us who they represent... For Ascoli we know it....

Quote from Paradigmnoia

And so I ask an opposite question:

Is the reason that F&P replications are not being presently done is that they are a waste of time and money?

There was one in 2020 if I recall correctly from a Russian who got positive results, but he did it for proving his theory of runaway reactions in Niquel Hydride batteries, and to imply that F&P had indeed found this phenomena instead of CF. I recall discussing this at length and even that it prompted some skepticism from LENR researchers that found it to have signs of fake data. It was published in the Journal of Analytic Electrochemistry.

He found results that agreed with F&P but he claims that the origin of the energy is from the capacity of Pd of storing much energy in the form of Hydrogen and releasing it in bursts. So, basically he agrees the phenomena exists but explains it based on his own line of research from his focus on NiH batteries. I know the paper was shared somewhere here and we discussed it a lot. Other relatively recent paper also did an F&P like test and found excess heat but also explained it away as something normal. I am sure I shared it with Bob Greenyer at some point in the past two years. I mention these because research and results continue to this day with positive results even if the researchers themselves have another point of view to explain them.

Quote from Shane D.

None are hanging back because FP's is unresolved (if indeed they are) that I know of.

I'm sorry, I hope this post is not considered poison, but the third slide of the Barham's presentation, you have chose in the first post of this thread as the most likely to sway a skeptic, shows these lines:

Quote

LENR FIELD ISSUES &

POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

• Lack of acceptance of thermal (heat) results

- Many calorimetry design

- Need academic from top research university

• Lack of …
• Lack of …
• Lack of transparency by researchers

- ...

- Openly discuss alternate (prosaic) explanation for anomalies

- No need to cherry-pick results

• Until this field is an accepted research area, no one group will succeed
• A rising tide of scientific merit will lift all boats

Display More

What I understand is that, for the proponents of the HIVER project, the listed issues must be resolved (in a transparent way) for LENR to be accepted as a research area, otherwise no one group will succeed.

The first issue on their list is about thermal (heat) results, and the McKubre paper, shown on the right side of the slide, is mostly dedicated at F&P and asks at the end of the summary: "In the light of 25 years further study of the palladium–deuterium system, what is the state of proof of Fleischmann and Pons’ claims?"

So, it seems to me that, contrary to what you said, the NAVSEA-DARPA slide means that without having first solved the F&P issues, the field will not succeed, that is, it will remain hanging back.

Am I wrong? Do you have another interpretation?

Quote from Ascoli65

I'm sorry, I hope this post is not considered poison, but the third slide of the Barham's presentation, you have chose in the first post of this thread as the most likely to sway a skeptic, shows these lines:

What I understand is that, for the proponents of the HIVER project, the listed issues must be resolved (in a transparent way) for LENR to be accepted as a research area, otherwise no one group will succeed.

The first issue on their list is about thermal (heat) results, and the McKubre paper, shown on the right side of the slide, is mostly dedicated at F&P and asks at the end of the summary: "In the light of 25 years further study of the palladium–deuterium system, what is the state of proof of Fleischmann and Pons’ claims?"

So, it seems to me that, contrary to what you said, the NAVSEA-DARPA slide means that without having first solved the F&P issues, the field will not succeed, that is, it will remain hanging back.

Am I wrong? Do you have another interpretation?

Display More

You are ignoring many Nickel Hydrogen positive results that are based on the F&P original idea, and published through the years in Fusion Technology by many and il Nuovo Cimento by Piantelli and Focardi. You just have “F&P tunnel vision”.

Quote from Ascoli65

So, it seems to me that, contrary to what you said, the NAVSEA-DARPA slide means that without having first solved the F&P issues, the field will not succeed, that is, it will remain hanging back.

Drowning men clutch at straws. But never mind the sea here isn't deep.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Assuming that your slightly cryptic statement here is because you have direct knowledge I will accept this. If you are just making an (obvious) assumption about how the testing was done the rule is: when things are unexpected don't make assumptions. For any skeptic LENR is unexpected. I sometimes think much of the differences of interpretation between LENR advocates and others derive from this. Anomalous behaviour is expected (from LENR) by LENR advocates. And unexpected by others. So others will have a stronger "question every assumption" instinct. This will seem silly to those who are

So - looking at these results - if easily reproducible - here is what I'd do.

(1) Although I can't see how tritium could be leached out of the electrodes or cell somehow this has not been positively excluded: anything present in the electrodes containing tritium would do the trick and we need v low concentrations. I don't rate this. You would need some material in which the tritium was highly concentrated from its low background level. Itb seems v unlikely. Nevertheless the engineer "don't make assumptions" thing tells me to keep this in mind when looking at what influences these results. Quite easy to check though if it comes into question - just do a low energy beta radioactivity check on the electrodes before the experiment.

(2) Check one by one all of the experimental conditions to see what controls the high Tritium results.

Carefully doing (2) will in the end lead to understanding what here is going on. If it is LENR it will lead to something LENR has never yet had: quantitative results that are indisputably nuclear, controllable, and can be used to investigate what is going on at a predictive phenomenological level.

Re low-level radioactivity: you can do the calcs for number of tritium atoms generated and relate that to the levels found. Since LENR as is is non-predictive you can make up whatever branching ratios you like, and also make up whatever nuclear reactions you like, so it is not a very useful test, and low-level radioactivity measurements have false positives...

THH

Display More

Sorry to bring back a comment from so early on the thread but I have been catching up.

THHuxleynew , I truly appreciate your commitment to find potential sources of error, but I often see some of your own assumptions could only stem from thinking that every single one of the researchers reporting positive results can only be a self deluded moron that failed to do the most basic of the checks.

One doesn’t need to have been there to realize the “bianco” (Blank or control in English) water was tested before the experiment for setting the baseline tritium content.

On a much humble scale the few exploratory experiments we did here with ultrasound treated solutions trying to replicate Lu et al reports of K to Ca transmutation, we tested the ultrapure water for knowing the baseline concentration of any of the ions to be measured, then we tested the prepared solution before ultrasound and after ultrasound. We were able to establish a consistent and quantitatively important “dissapearance” of K but we had trouble to find any consistent results for Ca, mostly due to the limitations of the atomic adsorption spectrometer we had to use, as the quadrupole ICP spectrometer was unavailable for months. Any serious researcher has to be able to identify error sources a priori.

You often imply basic stuff wasn’t considered.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

It is proved beyond a doubt, no one can do it anymore, or won’t, nobody can make it work when they want to, but it happens hundreds of times and no one will prove it again but we will be vindicated when someone else doing something else proves theirs…

How would you describe the top quark experiment? Or human voyages to the moon? They are proved beyond doubt, but no one can do them anymore because they are so difficult and expensive. There were several trips to the moon. Another with 1960s technology would not prove anything. There are many people who did not believe that anyone reached the moon. Another trip, or 10 trips, or 100 more would not convince them.

No one will replicate the original bulk Pd-D experiment because it takes years. What do you say to that? Are you willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have someone do this? I am not! And I have actually paid for many experiments. What would be the point of another replication? What would it accomplish? All previous replications did not convince most skeptics, such as THH. He rejects hundreds of experiments for nonsensical reasons. He would reject hundreds more, or thousands more. He will reject cold fusion until Nature and the New York Times give him permission to believe it.

Quote from JedRothwell

How would you describe the top quark experiment? Or human voyages to the moon? They are proved beyond doubt, but no one can do them anymore because they are so difficult and expensive. There were several trips to the moon. Another with 1960s technology would not prove anything. There are many people who did not believe that anyone reached the moon. Another trip, or 10 trips, or 100 more would not convince them.

No one will replicate the original bulk Pd-D experiment because it takes years. What do you say to that? Are you willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have someone do this? I am not! And I have actually paid for many experiments. What would be the point of another replication? What would it accomplish? All previous replications did not convince most skeptics, such as THH. He rejects hundreds of experiments for nonsensical reasons. He would reject hundreds more, or thousands more. He will reject cold fusion until Nature and the New York Times give him permission to believe it.

You can just say, yes it’s a waste of time and money.

Quote from orsova

Have you read any of Iwamura’s papers? Are you familiar with his work?

No, and I'm happy to do that if you give me links (I must have missed them before if you posted them).

Quote from JedRothwell

How would you describe the top quark experiment? Or human voyages to the moon? They are proved beyond doubt, but no one can do them anymore because they are so difficult and expensive. There were several trips to the moon. Another with 1960s technology would not prove anything. There are many people who did not believe that anyone reached the moon. Another trip, or 10 trips, or 100 more would not convince them.

I agree - the people who believe it was a NASA conspiracy will continue to do so.

However - trips to the moon? Artemis I launches on Saturday

Top quark experiment? Produced by Tevatron at 7pB^-1

Since LHC has been online we have much more detailed results (20 fB^-1)

When things have been done once, they tend to get easier the 2nd time. Moon landings were delayed because the effort in the 1970s was political - and politics changed. It has however got a lot easier to do it since then.

Quote from Curbina

He found results that agreed with F&P but he claims that the origin of the energy is from the capacity of Pd of storing much energy in the form of Hydrogen and releasing it in bursts. So, basically he agrees the phenomena exists but explains it based on his own line of research from his focus on NiH batteries. I know the paper was shared somewhere here and we discussed it a lot. Other relatively recent paper also did an F&P like test and found excess heat but also explained it away as something normal.

Exactly. If F&P replicated experiments showed results that were clearly nuclear - then such replications would not have normal explanations and interest in LENR would change.

Skeptics (like me) agree that those experiments do show unusual anomalous heat. We don't understand it but think Pd vacacies + H give lots of possibility for interesting effects that could deliver the results. We do not see, from those experiments, the evidence for supposing LENR (type 1) surprising not just because of Coulomb barrier (not so bad) but suppression of expected high energy products (much worse).